The Far Eastern pattern of mortality is not a unique regional mortality model: A reply to Noreen Goldman.

According to the author, in a paper published in a previous issue of the journal Population Studies, he questioned the validity of the so-called Far Eastern pattern of mortality as a unique regional mortality model. In her response researcher Noreen Goldman makes three major points. First, the Far Eastern mortality pattern as originally formulated by her differs from that defined by the United Nations Population Division. Second, the method used in author's analysis is different from that of her and not effective in discerning mortality patterns. Third, the Far Eastern mortality pattern as defined by her is indeed a unique mortality model. In this article the author comments on these assertions and further demonstrates that the Far Eastern mortality pattern is not unique regional model. Goldman provides some useful information in her rejoinder, but her major conclusions are unconvincing. While her early investigation into mortality changes in East Asia played a notable role in alerting demographers to the deficiencies of life tables for describing mortality experiences outside of the industrialized world, the claim that the Far Eastern mortality pattern is a distinctive regional mortality model is not well founded.